Raise The Minimum Wage!

Rune said:
I see. Still no actual proof.
You tire me greatly at this point.
If you can find proof of your position, please post it.
Click to expand...

Like I said... Just as soon as HuffPo or DailyKos, or MoveOn.org posts the 'evidence' to support what I've said, I will be GLAD to re-post this for you!

Until then, you can remain ignorant or believe in magic money trees, it's all the same to me, because you are basically irrelevant at this point.
 
Darla said:
This is false but a lot of cons believe it. They believe it because FOX news tells them it's so.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in fact 3/4's of those earning minimum wage are 20 or older.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009tbls.htm#1
Click to expand...

and according to that link, 51.8 of people earning minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24......that's close enough to "majority" to keep me satisfied......

minimum wage earners are either kids just getting started in their first job or people who lack the job skills necessary to earn a higher pay.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and according to that link, 51.8 of people earning minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24......that's close enough to "majority" to keep me satisfied......
Click to expand...

Really so people 20 and over are "children" to you? That demographic in no way meets any criteria of the word. So you're satisfied by lies.

At least we've proved that, and thank you for admitting it.
 
Darla said:
Really so people 20 and over are "children" to you? That demographic in no way meets any criteria of the word. So you're satisfied by lies.

At least we've proved that, and thank you for admitting it.
Click to expand...

not exclusively......liberals are "children" as well, based upon capability rather than age.....but go ahead and pretend we don't both know that we're talking about high school and college kids earning a little spending money on the side.....
 
from what I've seen the "miniumum" wage actually becomes the "maximum" paid to entry level employees......employers don't have to be competitive, because they know all the other employers around are paying exactly the same for entry level jobs.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not exclusively......liberals are "children" as well, based upon capability rather than age.....but go ahead and pretend we don't both know that we're talking about high school and college kids earning a little spending money on the side.....
Click to expand...

I don't have to pretend anything. You repeated yet another false right wing talking point. You were shocked into a 3 hour silence when you found out the truth, and then you came in and said that even though it's false you're still right. Proving yourself to live in a right wing fantasy world impervious to all facts.

Textbook wingnut.

Perfection really.
 
Since Rune has her panties in a bunch, and continually keeps asking for 'proof' instead of using common sense...I posted this Waaaaaaay back on page 13, and she ignored it...

In a free labor market, wage rates reflect the willingness of workers to work (supply) and the willingness of employers to hire them (demand). Worker productivity is the main determinant of what employers are willing to pay. Most working people are not directly affected by the minimum wage because their productivity and, hence, their pay, is already well above it.

The law of demand says that at a higher price, less is demanded, and it applies to grapefruit, cars, movie tickets and, yes, labor. Because a legislated increase in the price of labor does not increase workers' productivity, some workers will lose their jobs. Which ones? Those who are the least productive.

Minimum wage laws mostly harm teenagers and young adults because they typically have little work experience and take jobs that require fewer skills. That's why economists looking for the effect of the minimum wage on employment don't look at data on educated 45-year-old men; rather, they focus on teenagers and young adults, especially black teenagers. Paul Samuelson, the first American winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, put it succinctly back in 1970. Analyzing a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $2 an hour in his famous textbook, Economics , he wrote, "What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?"

A comprehensive survey of minimum wage studies found that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces employment of young workers by 1 percent to 2 percent. To put that into perspective:

Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposed 15 percent increase in the state minimum wage would destroy about 35,000 to 70,000 unskilled jobs - putting 1.5 to 3 percent of young Californians out of work.
Overall, the proposed minimum wage increase in California would eliminate about 70,000 to 140,000 jobs.
A 15 percent increase in the minimum wage nationwide would destroy about 290,000 to 590,000 young people's jobs, and about 400,000 to 800,000 jobs overall.
Fortunately, and to his credit, Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to avoid indexing the minimum wage to either the consumer price index or a wage index, as the French government did in 1970. Indexing the minimum wage makes it much harder to get the inflation-adjusted minimum wage down and makes it permanently harder for the least-skilled workers to find jobs. The rising minimum wage in France since then has added to the country's youth-unemployment woes.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba550/
Click to expand...

Further, a detailed study started in the '80s, and updated in the early 2000's

How Do Retail Prices React to Minimum Wage Increases?
A textbook consequence of an industry-wide cost shock is that it will be passed on
to consumers through an increase in prices. The minimum wage offers a compelling
natural experiment of such a cost shock, particularly among industries that employ low-
wage labor.
We assess the effect of recent minimum wage increases on restaurant prices,
using specific item prices collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). We find that
price responses follow textbook expectations in several dimensions. First, restaurant
prices rise, by amounts that are broadly consistent with the modest costs imposed by
minimum wage increases. Second, prices respond rather quickly, within a six-month window around the wage increase. Third, price increases are greater among fastfood
outlets and in low-wage locations, where minimum wage increases would be expected to
have greater effects on costs.
But other elements of the price response are more complicated. A restaurant does
not raise all of its prices by amounts reflecting the costs of minimum wage increases
(from 0.3 to 1.8 percent, depending on outlet type and location). Rather, it raises fewer
prices (up to 25 percent of its items), but by 3 to 6 percent, on average. That response
suggests that there may be some item-specific costs to changing price, or that demand
elasticities vary across items. Furthermore, we find that items at certain prices (such as
fastfood items with prices ending in 99 cents) are less likely to be raised in the face of a
minimum wage increase, and that outlets with recent price reviews are less likely to
respond to minimum wage changes.
This pattern of restaurant price responses relates closely to notions of price
stickiness. As has been known since Keynes, the dynamics of a price change can be
complicated; in particular, prices may not react instantaneously to cost changes. Figure 1
exemplifies the issue; it plots monthly changes in the Food Away from Home component
of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 1995 to 1997, along with Producer Price Indexes
for two key restaurant inputs: pork and ground beef. While input prices are quite volatile,
the Away from Home CPI moves slowly and methodically. Figure 1 suggests that prices
may respond very slowly to cost changes, and the literature suggests conditions under
which prices may not react at all. We present further evidence of sluggish price changes
in our analysis below and relate those findings to other firm level results on nominal price
rigidity. We then contrast the usual co-movements of prices and costs with the rapid and
full response to a large, national, well-identified cost shock like the minimum wage.

http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2000/wp2000_20.pdf
Click to expand...


Seems to back Dixie's common sense thoughts here.
 
Darla said:
Really so people 20 and over are "children" to you? That demographic in no way meets any criteria of the word. So you're satisfied by lies.

At least we've proved that, and thank you for admitting it.
Click to expand...


LMAO... yet isn't it Obama care that allows children to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... yet isn't it Obama care that allows children to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything SF? That was done to gain white, suburban, support. And I don't know about you, I'm sureeeeeee your experience has been different, but mine has been that white suburbanites are crazy about that part of the ACA, and always make sure to mumble after one of their "those people" rants that the part of the ACA that affects them, like the clause you mention, are okay.

I don't think that this renders adults 26 and under "children" do you? Unless you mean in the sense that we're all someone's child. Or at least, most of us are I think?
 
Darla said:
I don't have to pretend anything. You repeated yet another false right wing talking point. You were shocked into a 3 hour silence when you found out the truth, and then you came in and said that even though it's false you're still right. Proving yourself to live in a right wing fantasy world impervious to all facts.

Textbook wingnut.

Perfection really.
Click to expand...

lol....the "three hour silence" was actually, meeting with clients.....and I what I stated is true, despite your anticipated denials......we've already demonstrated the board's liberals try to win arguments by lying, this is merely another example.....
 
Rune said:
LMAO, so when you turned 27 you were no longer your parrent's child? :facepalm:
Click to expand...

This is what i mean by you can't prove one of them wrong. If you do, the hive comes in and they will twist turn lie do anything to pretend that one of them wasn't proved wrong. It's really amazing. It has made me furious in the past, SF in particular, but I am really working hard to just not let it get to me anymore. Being incapable of admitting that one is wrong leads to an innately dishonest persona, and there is no point getting angry over that.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....the "three hour silence" was actually, meeting with clients.....and I what I stated is true, despite your anticipated denials......we've already demonstrated the board's liberals try to win arguments by lying, this is merely another example.....
Click to expand...

So your statement: "thats simply because the majority of people earning only minimum wage ARE children...." is "true" even though 3/4's of minimum wage workers are 20 years of age or older??

This is where they move from being victims of the right wing propaganda machine to being outright stone cold liars.

I would be so embarrassed. But that's why I'm not a con I guess! :)
 
Darla said:
This is what i mean by you can't prove one of them wrong. If you do, the hive comes in and they will twist turn lie do anything to pretend that one of them wasn't proved wrong. It's really amazing. It has made me furious in the past, SF in particular, but I am really working hard to just not let it get to me anymore. Being incapable of admitting that one is wrong leads to an innately dishonest persona, and there is no point getting angry over that.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that imbeciles and whack jobs comprise only a small percentage of who's reading the posts here. And they aren't worthy of the effort to further clarify what is already glaringly obvious to the moderately-intelligent sane person.
 
Today's conservatives ARE innately dishonest, excepting those who disavow the GOP.

Yurt, Bravo, SM, and especially PiMP are prime examples.

Dixie, I am pretty sure, believes his own bullshit.
 
Well what I believe hasn't been refuted here yet. I believe that we don't have magic money trees, and as such, ANY increase in the MW will create inflated prices for the consumer, and this will ALWAYS amount to more than any increase in the MW, because the money must be derived from someplace. You can't explain why that is incorrect, because it's not incorrect. The proof is the fact that we have been raising the MW consistently over the past 40 years, and we still find the same condition, things have not changed.
 
Darla said:
" is "true" even though 3/4's of minimum wage workers are 20 years of age or older??
Click to expand...

yes, because more than half of them are high school and college kids....and lets be honest......you've never shown any embarrassment about the lies liberals spread here....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, because more than half of them are high school and college kids....and lets be honest......you've never shown any embarrassment about the lies liberals spread here....
Click to expand...

Really, people 20 and over are high school kids?

What planet do you live on moron? You know, wait a minute...it took you until 20 years of age to get out of high school? NOW we are getting somewhere.

Okay...this explains a lot. A lot.
 
Darla said:
What does that have to do with anything SF? That was done to gain white, suburban, support. And I don't know about you, I'm sureeeeeee your experience has been different, but mine has been that white suburbanites are crazy about that part of the ACA, and always make sure to mumble after one of their "those people" rants that the part of the ACA that affects them, like the clause you mention, are okay.

I don't think that this renders adults 26 and under "children" do you? Unless you mean in the sense that we're all someone's child. Or at least, most of us are I think?
Click to expand...

You see dearest little Darla, when I quote something you say, such as:

Really so people 20 and over are "children" to you? That demographic in no way meets any criteria of the word.
Click to expand...

and then I reply with...

LMAO... yet isn't it Obama care that allows children to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26?
Click to expand...

that would give you a pretty good idea what it has to do with.

I know you are easily confused and it is hard for you to keep up, but do at least try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top